Annotation #11, Sustainable Farming and Food Production
11/15/12
Word Count: 1264
Title: FRESH
Director: Ana Sofia Joanes
Release Year: 2009 What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that Americans only fear inconvenience, we continuously want want want, and we don’t care what we consume as long as food looks and tastes good. However, factory farming is unsustainable in that it creates waste without recycling it and that these monocultures that factory farms have created are doing more damage than just convincing Americans to make bad decisions. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film’s argument is made and sustained by taking apart factory farming bit by bit. The first argument is how larger companies are buying out smaller ones, such as local chicken farms, and giving them products to feed the livestock with without question and in return, the farmer makes a considerable profit. The chicken farmers that were interviewed about chicken feed, say that thanks to the larger corporations conditions are better for chickens, the feed is good for them and not bad because it makes them grow faster for production.
The second argument is about monocultures in that traditional farms work because the manure and waste produced by the livestock is used as fertilizer for plants and crops which are then used for production and feed for the livestock; it’s a self-sustaining operation. With monocultures such as livestock farms, manure becomes a pollutant because it can’t be reused, and vice versa with plants; in order for them to be sustained, fertilizer must be produced rather than taken from livestock farms.
The final argument is what the livestock are actually fed and injected with and how that ultimately affects humans that consume the livestock. For example, in order to increase production, cows were fed deceased cows mixed with sweetener and minerals in order to produce cheap feed. This of course led to the outbreak of mad cow disease, however the film went on to list similar outbreaks all due to lack of hygiene or common sense when it came to feeding livestock. These outbreaks can also be contributed to hormones, steroids, and antibiotics given to those animals. For example, antibiotics have to be upped every so often because the virus they were originally targeted towards will become stronger in response. This has led to superhuman strands of diseases and viruses among livestock farms. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film draws on the behavioral and cultural issues of monoculture farming by showing how they are unsustainable as they are currently operating. This ties in closely with the economic side of the problem, which is that with monoculture farming, manure becomes a pollutant for livestock farms and fertilizer becomes a complication with crop farming. Furthermore, economically as well as culturally is the issue of outsourcing products we have the capabilities to make in the U.S. but thanks to cheap labor and mass production, corporations outsource overseas and sell the cheaper product on shelves. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film that I found most compelling was the fact that we took a working and functional system—the traditional and self-sustaining farm—and changed it in order to produce mass quantities but even when that system began failing in the form of pollution and disease outbreak, we continue to use it today. This message, combined with the intervention of Will Allen with sustainable farming made the message clear and kind of a common sense one; why not use the process that we know works? What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The part I was not necessarily convinced with was, unfortunately, that traditional farming could be used commercially. In order for a shift of that magnitude to go back to traditional farming would have to mean that either each family would need their own farm or major corporations would have to gain and split their profits from one farm that would produce a number of different crops and meats. This system, while idealistic seems unrealistic in the sense of marketing. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film best addresses the people of the United States that peruse grocery stores and may want to know exactly what they are purchasing and more importantly what they’re voting for when they purchase a certain food product. It also sheds light on the lesser known self-sustaining farm techniques that people could use at home such as using worms instead of MiracleGro to use plants, tips that everyday household users could use advantageously. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film was very conscious of the effects factory farming has on different parts of life such as monetary, humane, and medical values. Therefore, it seems like there was little that film could have added to enhance its environmental educational value. One small change I could think to add to give the film more knowledgeable would be to how organic farms have done good, like Stonyfield dairy farms, in order to make the idea more attractive. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
There are a few points of intervention suggested by the film. The first is dollar voting for both organic food and locally produced food. Organic food may be more expensive, but it is also more valuable; vitamins are lost in the production of food because the more you process it, the less nutritious it becomes. The film goes on to state that cheap food is an illusion; it is cheaper but charges more to subsidies, health, and the environment. In order to level the playing field our economy needs to stop subsidizing and start supporting fresh produce and livestock. Locally, in this instance, is a store in Kansas City that only stocks its shelves with local farms’ produce and meat. This trend began thanks to outsourcing where America’s major corporations and supermarkets go oversees where there is a cheaper product available due to lower wages and mass production.
The second point of intervention mentioned by the film was a vignette on Will Allen of Growing Power. Will Allen is a sustainable farmer who works with various crops and fertilizers from Milwaukee, such as compost from Milwaukee left overs. He gives people tours of his greenhouse where there are multiple self-sustaining functions occurring. For example, there is a system where fish waste is taken to the plants for fertilizer and the water is then recycled back into the fish’s habitat. He also uses worms as fertilizer thanks to their natural role in the Earth’s soil and explains how nature wins out, for instance rather than using MiracleGro, which consists of artificial fertilizer. In short, he is showing the public the good of the natural and sustainable farming process, and makes fresh meat and vegetables available to lower income communities as well as showing them how to farm sustainably for themselves. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
After watching the film, I sought out resources similar to Will Allen’s program that people could use at home in order to have a more sustainable food source. http://www.sacgardens.org/ http://www.greenamerica.org/livinggreen/worms.cfm
Annotation #11, Sustainable Farming and Food Production
11/15/12
Word Count: 1264
Title: FRESH
Director: Ana Sofia Joanes
Release Year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that Americans only fear inconvenience, we continuously want want want, and we don’t care what we consume as long as food looks and tastes good. However, factory farming is unsustainable in that it creates waste without recycling it and that these monocultures that factory farms have created are doing more damage than just convincing Americans to make bad decisions.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film’s argument is made and sustained by taking apart factory farming bit by bit. The first argument is how larger companies are buying out smaller ones, such as local chicken farms, and giving them products to feed the livestock with without question and in return, the farmer makes a considerable profit. The chicken farmers that were interviewed about chicken feed, say that thanks to the larger corporations conditions are better for chickens, the feed is good for them and not bad because it makes them grow faster for production.
The second argument is about monocultures in that traditional farms work because the manure and waste produced by the livestock is used as fertilizer for plants and crops which are then used for production and feed for the livestock; it’s a self-sustaining operation. With monocultures such as livestock farms, manure becomes a pollutant because it can’t be reused, and vice versa with plants; in order for them to be sustained, fertilizer must be produced rather than taken from livestock farms.
The final argument is what the livestock are actually fed and injected with and how that ultimately affects humans that consume the livestock. For example, in order to increase production, cows were fed deceased cows mixed with sweetener and minerals in order to produce cheap feed. This of course led to the outbreak of mad cow disease, however the film went on to list similar outbreaks all due to lack of hygiene or common sense when it came to feeding livestock. These outbreaks can also be contributed to hormones, steroids, and antibiotics given to those animals. For example, antibiotics have to be upped every so often because the virus they were originally targeted towards will become stronger in response. This has led to superhuman strands of diseases and viruses among livestock farms.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
This film draws on the behavioral and cultural issues of monoculture farming by showing how they are unsustainable as they are currently operating. This ties in closely with the economic side of the problem, which is that with monoculture farming, manure becomes a pollutant for livestock farms and fertilizer becomes a complication with crop farming. Furthermore, economically as well as culturally is the issue of outsourcing products we have the capabilities to make in the U.S. but thanks to cheap labor and mass production, corporations outsource overseas and sell the cheaper product on shelves.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film that I found most compelling was the fact that we took a working and functional system—the traditional and self-sustaining farm—and changed it in order to produce mass quantities but even when that system began failing in the form of pollution and disease outbreak, we continue to use it today. This message, combined with the intervention of Will Allen with sustainable farming made the message clear and kind of a common sense one; why not use the process that we know works?
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The part I was not necessarily convinced with was, unfortunately, that traditional farming could be used commercially. In order for a shift of that magnitude to go back to traditional farming would have to mean that either each family would need their own farm or major corporations would have to gain and split their profits from one farm that would produce a number of different crops and meats. This system, while idealistic seems unrealistic in the sense of marketing.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film best addresses the people of the United States that peruse grocery stores and may want to know exactly what they are purchasing and more importantly what they’re voting for when they purchase a certain food product. It also sheds light on the lesser known self-sustaining farm techniques that people could use at home such as using worms instead of MiracleGro to use plants, tips that everyday household users could use advantageously.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film was very conscious of the effects factory farming has on different parts of life such as monetary, humane, and medical values. Therefore, it seems like there was little that film could have added to enhance its environmental educational value. One small change I could think to add to give the film more knowledgeable would be to how organic farms have done good, like Stonyfield dairy farms, in order to make the idea more attractive.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
There are a few points of intervention suggested by the film. The first is dollar voting for both organic food and locally produced food. Organic food may be more expensive, but it is also more valuable; vitamins are lost in the production of food because the more you process it, the less nutritious it becomes. The film goes on to state that cheap food is an illusion; it is cheaper but charges more to subsidies, health, and the environment. In order to level the playing field our economy needs to stop subsidizing and start supporting fresh produce and livestock. Locally, in this instance, is a store in Kansas City that only stocks its shelves with local farms’ produce and meat. This trend began thanks to outsourcing where America’s major corporations and supermarkets go oversees where there is a cheaper product available due to lower wages and mass production.
The second point of intervention mentioned by the film was a vignette on Will Allen of Growing Power. Will Allen is a sustainable farmer who works with various crops and fertilizers from Milwaukee, such as compost from Milwaukee left overs. He gives people tours of his greenhouse where there are multiple self-sustaining functions occurring. For example, there is a system where fish waste is taken to the plants for fertilizer and the water is then recycled back into the fish’s habitat. He also uses worms as fertilizer thanks to their natural role in the Earth’s soil and explains how nature wins out, for instance rather than using MiracleGro, which consists of artificial fertilizer. In short, he is showing the public the good of the natural and sustainable farming process, and makes fresh meat and vegetables available to lower income communities as well as showing them how to farm sustainably for themselves.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
After watching the film, I sought out resources similar to Will Allen’s program that people could use at home in order to have a more sustainable food source.
http://www.sacgardens.org/
http://www.greenamerica.org/livinggreen/worms.cfm